How Could Guru Nanak Visit Mecca If He Wasn't A Muslim?

[misskaur1]

First of all, the religious tension on the Indian subcontinent that caused the partition was between Muslims and Hindus. Sikhs were just caught in the crossfire, and I am sure that there are plenty of Hindus that have invoked anti-Sikh rhetoric. Second, your argument that anyone could be a secret extremist is a serious logical fallacy. If a person makes a claim you do not like, you label them an extremist. If a person claims that not everyone with certain views is an extremist, you will claim that either they are an extremist or have been fooled by extremists. The only way you can be convinced that a person is not a "closet extremist" (which is an oxy{censored} in its own right) is to agree with your perspective. Also, the Muslims of India and Pakistan in 1947 are not the Muslims of India and Pakistan today. Many Muslims were most likely hoping to leave Hindu dominated India to move to Muslim dominated Pakistan to avoid discrimination. If there had been a vote to create a separate African-American dominated state at the end of slavery, I am reasonably sure the African-American vote for the creation of that state would have be heavily in favor of it, even if they did not live in the region. Also, if India was so concerned with having a united Indian subcontinent, they did not have to have a vote. They could have subdued Pakistani nationalists by force.

cuppy cakes, why do islamists try to divide Hindus and Sikhs, I see this all the time, it is to cause tension between the 2 religions, when in fact Hindus and Sikhs were defending the same cause. To prevent muslims converting their women in India. Hence the objective is the same. Most Sikhs can see right through this and to be honest muslims have not done themselves any favours seeing as most of the trouble in the world and extremist views are possessed by muslims on a huge scale, in fact no other religion has been the cause of so much disrespect against another religion nor wars as islam. Even today.

Have a look on muslim threads...see how they disrespect other religions on there and try brainwash people of other religions with their false views. They are the extremists, not Hindus and Sikhs. We just retaliate which should be expected, after all you reap what you sow.

I an firm in what I believe and understand that unity between Hindus and Sikhs should and will always remain. Its clear to see what muslims try and do, to cause division between the two, but they will never achieve this.

 

[kds1980]

NOT TRUE it does not say this anywhere. In fact the Gurus all say all these things are to be AVOIDED. Another example of manipulated information to be used by people to do what they want. It is disgusting to even associate these things with the teachings of the Gurus. Read up the Panj Pyare you will see for yourself. I will let you do your research. I am simply shocked to see how ignorant and manipulated people really are, its unbelievable.

Mr Verma

Show me where Guru said to Panj pyare not to kill or eat meat?

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-rehat-maryada/sikh-rehat-maryada-the-code-of-sikh-conduct

Here are 6 Puratan rehat written by Sikhs close to Guru gobind singh not even a single one mentioned not to eat meat.Sikhs Fought with muslims using guerrilla warfare technique,in that technique you have to Eat animals as you cannot solely rely on vegetarian food.

As far research is concerned I have already done it plenty ,no need to tell other that they are ignorant because they don't accept your version of thinking

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Hi Scarlet Pimpernel, I actually stumbled across this thread and post and felt I need to comment. I do not agree with what you say here

Welcome sister If I have encouraged you to enrol even if only so you could disagree with me I'm pleased,however I have a few disagreements running at once ,so I must take your leave for now Mademoiselle ,as a parting gift please accept this quote from the movie Sinbad 'Trust in Allah but always remember to tie up your Camel.'

 

[Ambarsaria]

Verma1 ji thanks for your post. I sincerely would like to know bit more details on how you achieve or what you think about some that I have excerpted.

As I said before, I myself am both Hindu and Sikh and therefore follow both religions deeply.
1. Is it a statement of Sikh as in Sikh Rehat Maryada or more a philosophical interpretation of pick and choose parts and discard some? I just cannot see how it is possible to accommodate otherwise.

As a result of studying and learning both religions, I have found that both religions are the same,
2. Again I am very interested in a list of similarities not comprehensive but the key ones. Sikhs came from Hindus does not count.

If you actually look at Sikh Teachings, The Gurus do believe in Karma, Re-incarnation, not eating meat and meditation.
3. I believe what you are stating is in fact what you truly believe. I know you can quote shabads so I will really appreciate a quoted shabad from Sri Guru Granth Sahib, on say Karma, which parallels what you believe is Hinduism belief on the same.

It goes without saying that there is much common between people versus what is different and we should try to seek common values.

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

cuppy cakes, why do islamists try to divide Hindus and Sikhs, I see this all the time, it is to cause tension between the 2 religions, when in fact Hindus and Sikhs were defending the same cause. To prevent muslims converting their women in India. Hence the objective is the same. Most Sikhs can see right through this and to be honest muslims have not done themselves any favours seeing as most of the trouble in the world and extremist views are possessed by muslims on a huge scale, in fact no other religion has been the cause of so much disrespect against another religion nor wars as islam. Even today.

Have a look on muslim threads...see how they disrespect other religions on there and try brainwash people of other religions with their false views. They are the extremists, not Hindus and Sikhs. We just retaliate which should be expected, after all you reap what you sow.

I an firm in what I believe and understand that unity between Hindus and Sikhs should and will always remain. Its clear to see what muslims try and do, to cause division between the two, but they will never achieve this.

If a Sikh does something wrong, I will not blame Sikhism. If a Christian does something wrong, I will not blame Christianity. Likewise, if a Muslim does something wrong and even if they desperately try to use religion as their excuse, I am still not ever going to blame Islam. I understand the message of all religions is positive. Unfortunately though, people like to unnecessarily create divides for their own means. Everyone has prejudice, even if their religion speaks out against it. Despite Sikhism being a religion meant to unite, I see lots of Sikhs with prejudice against Muslims, other castes, etc. Still I do not blame Sikhism because I know that that is not what Sikhism teaches at all.

 

[kds1980]

If a Sikh does something wrong, I will not blame Sikhism. If a Christian does something wrong, I will not blame Christianity. Likewise, if a Muslim does something wrong and even if they desperately try to use religion as their excuse, I am still not ever going to blame Islam. I understand the message of all religions is positive. Unfortunately though, people like to unnecessarily create divides for their own means. Everyone has prejudice, even if their religion speaks out against it. Despite Sikhism being a religion meant to unite, I see lots of Sikhs with prejudice against Muslims, other castes, etc. Still I do not blame Sikhism because I know that that is not what Sikhism teaches at all.

OCC

This is where you are wrong if muslims do something which is wrong but they believe it is O.K to do because they are doing it with non muslims then it is duty of Muslim scholars to correct them.Muslim scholars like Zakir naik use all their knowledge to convert people and an average muslim go gaga over him when he see that how people are embracing islam why can't these scholars use their energy in promoting harmony telling muslims to live in peace with other religions especially IN MUSLIM DOMINATED COUNTRIES?

 

[Ishna]

OCC

This is where you are wrong if muslims do something which is wrong but they believe it is O.K to do because they are doing it with non muslims then it is duty of Muslim scholars to correct them.Muslim scholars like Zakir naik use all their knowledge to convert people and an average muslim go gaga over him when he see that how people are embracing islam why can't these scholars use their energy in promoting harmony telling muslims to live in peace with other religions especially IN MUSLIM DOMINATED COUNTRIES?

KDS it appears your post fails to prove OCC ji 'wrong' - it just pursues a different argument.

OCC ji summed up a lot of human sentiment, and I concurr. If we start thinking of each other as humans and not religious labels we might get further.

It is interesting to note that when a member of a religion does something good, it is on their head. When they do something bad, it is on their religion.

 

[kds1980]

KDS it appears your post fails to prove OCC ji 'wrong' - it just pursues a different argument.

OCC ji summed up a lot of human sentiment, and I concurr. If we start thinking of each other as humans and not religious labels we might get further.

It is interesting to note that when a member of a religion does something good, it is on their head. When they do something bad, it is on their religion.

Ishna ji

Forget about religions Humans divide themselves onj the basis of Nation,Region ,language ,caste ,culture and everything what they found.Have you heard of telengana movement in India.It is part of State of North Andhra pradesh who want separate statehood for them .The funny thing is they are of same religion ,speak same language ,have same culture but still they are Voilently demanding separate state.

Coming on OCC's post Religions are blamed if there follower especially the practicing one do something wrong with others.Hinduism get repeatedly blamed for dividing humans between castes so why can't Islam be blamed for dividing between society into muslims and non muslims.

Let me give you historical Example Ghenghis Khan was Budhist/chinese religion follower he did lot of destruction but none of his destruction was based on Religion.His knights belong from all religions infact some historians say no court could match Ghenghis khan's court in term of secularism apart from Akbar's court who was very less practicing muslim.Now what happened later with mongols when they converted to islam? They became One of most intolerant muslims and wherever they go just destroyed Temples and killed thousands of non muslims

Case-1 Ghenghis Khan cruel ,Killed thousands but never on the basis of religion ,respected all religions.

Case-2 His descendents Muslims cruel killed Thousands but specifically targeted Non muslims and destroyed their places of worship

 

[Ishna]

So the point is it doesn't matter how religious or not a person is, their capacity for prejudice and division is the same regardless, so it doesn't matter if that person is a Muslim or a Christian or a Sikh. It is a human failing, the tendency to divide, form groups, be elitist, oppress others, belittle them, conquer them, convert them.

 

[Janpreet]

As I said before, I myself am both Hindu and Sikh and therefore follow both religions deeply. As a result of studying and learning both religions, I have found that both religions are the same, ........

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Verma1 ji, if you read and understand Gurbani, you will find almost all practices Hindus does or do in the name of god is condemned in GGSJ. I will list few on top of my head:

1. Gurbani says God is one but we all know Hindu people worship different types of gods.

2. Gurbani says that one god does everything but as per Hindus; Brahma is creator, Vishnu is preserver and Mahesh/Shiva is destroyer.

3. Gurbani says god is fearless but when we read about Hindu gods, one Hindu god is scared or afraid of another Hindu god.

4. Gurbani says god is genderless but we all know Hindus have male gods and goddesses

5. Gurbani says god has no form or shape etc but we all know Hindu gods have shape, size, colors etc

6. Gurbani says there is no physical place such as Heaven or hell (its state of your mind) but Hindu's believe 'Inder' is god of heaven and it is a physical place where good people end up after they die.

7. Gurbani puts no restriction on dietary (except intoxicants) but Hindus are supposed to follow vegetarian diet.

8. Gurbani rejects the idea of fasting in the name of god or get some kind of boon from god but Hindus are big on fasting to please god or get special boon for e.g. ‘Karva Chauthh’.

9. Gurbani has no concept of getting boon or 'sharap' but Hindu people practice it very frequently.

10. Gurbani rejects ritual bathing but Hindus believe by doing ritual baths their sins will magically disappear.

Trust me I can go on and on and list down probably hundreds of dissimilarity between Sikhism and Hinduism conceptual wise, philosophy wise and day to day practices wise.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying beliefs and practices Hindus does are wrong. They might be right but Gurbani does not accept them hence a Sikh is not supposed to hold such beliefs or practices.

Therefore you could either be Sikh or Hindu, not both.

 

[Janpreet]

I did not say the Guru's were manipulated, but some information in the Granth has been changed as time has gone by people .....

Interesting, do you realize that there are still handwritten Saroops of Guru Granth Sahib ji from times of Gurus?

As far as my knowledge serves, there have no deletion in Adi Granth from the day Guru Arjan Dev ji did very first parkash till this day. Only 'Ragmaala' was added later on which we all are aware of.

Do you have any reference or authentic source which proofs your point that "some information in the Granth has been changed" and what are these changes?

 

[kds1980]

So the point is it doesn't matter how religious or not a person is, their capacity for prejudice and division is the same regardless, so it doesn't matter if that person is a Muslim or a Christian or a Sikh. It is a human failing, the tendency to divide, form groups, be elitist, oppress others, belittle them, conquer them, convert them.

No the point is not that Hindu,Sikh Budhist , ,all have tendency to convert others,if that is the case then why ghenghis Khan was not converting people in to Buddhism? The point is muslims from past 1400 years have been doing crimes in the name of their religion against other Religions .

 

[Ishna]

No the point is not that Hindu,Sikh Budhist , ,all have tendency to convert others,if that is the case then why ghenghis Khan was not converting people in to Buddhism? The point is muslims from past 1400 years have been doing crimes in the name of their religion against other Religions .

We have reached a point of disagreement with no impasse. On the one hand is the belief that Muslims have all committed crimes in the name of their religion against other religions. In the other hand is the belief that it is the people who commit crimes, not the religion itself.

It is akin to saying it's the guns that kill people, when in fact it is the people who kill people WITH the guns.

To tarnish an entire religion is very divisive. Sikhi is about creating in people a sense of commonality and unity, not division.

 

[kds1980]

We have reached a point of disagreement with no impasse. On the one hand is the belief that Muslims have all committed crimes in the name of their religion against other religions. In the other hand is the belief that it is the people who commit crimes, not the religion itself.

It is akin to saying it's the guns that kill people, when in fact it is the people who kill people WITH the guns.

To tarnish an entire religion is very divisive. Sikhi is about creating in people a sense of commonality and unity, not division.

Religion itself influence people and society in big way though common characteristics of humans retain in most of people.The people who kill with gun should have mentality to kill others O/W gun is a useless tool for them.For example just give a gun to jain and ask him to shoot at animal and he may not be able to do that ,but then give it to muslim or christian and they may do it without hesistation.

TBH I don't have any interest in muslim or islam debate but if any secular muslim will come and say that islam has nothing to what muslims did or doing with non muslims then I will reply to him

 

[Ishna]

These guys say it best. It's about racism but the idea still stands - you can't say one person's evil mind makes the entire race evil, you can't say one person's evil mind makes the entire religion evil.

Sikhi is about finding common ground in virtue and seeing people as people, not their religion. Happy to be corrected.

One Tribe by Black Eyed Peas Lyrics - YouTube

 

[spnadmin]

The thread has gone off topic for some time now. Let's go back to the original purpose of the discussion.

I have a question. Does anyone know at what point in history Mecca was cut off to non-Muslims? Somewhere in the back of my mind this question is rattling about. If we could answer it, it might resolve the thread questions. Thanks.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Yes I too would like to know when and WHY...Mecca was sealed OFF to Non Muslims ??
IS this decision based on Islam or "people"....and IF its NOT Based on ISLAM..why do the 1 BILLION Musims permit such UNISLAMIC Behaviour by "people".....

2. Ask any Pakistani Muslim..to them the Mughals are Heroes of the highest order...even kings like Jehangir shah jehan and aurengzeb or muhd rangila....and Akbar is NOT so great !!! Reason is obvious...AKBAR was a bit too Multi Racial/multi religious compared to the fanatics named....in fact Akbar may even be considered MURTAD for being non-muslim friendly ruler...

 

[Ambarsaria]

The thread has gone off topic for some time now. Let's go back to the original purpose of the discussion.

I have a question. Does anyone know at what point in history Mecca was cut off to non-Muslims? Somewhere in the back of my mind this question is rattling about. If we could answer it, it might resolve the thread questions. Thanks.

spnadmin ji it appears that there may be periods of open and close access to Mecca dependent upon who was in control. For example,

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=+2]History of Mecca[/FONT]
Known around 0 CE as Macoraba, and was an important trade and religious centre.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

630 - 1268: Comes under control of Muhammad, and purged it of all traces of non-Muslim religion.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]So one has to assume that non-Muslims were not allowed from 630 to 1268.


1269 - 1516: Comes under control of the Egyptian Mamluks.
So one has to assume that in the period 1269 to 1516 there were few restrictions as Mamluks appear less tied to the previous period and as a matter of fact defeated the people of that period to capture Mecca. These were predominantly warrior driven Sultanates which also spread to India. For example, [/FONT]

The mausoleum of Qutub ud Din Aibak in Anarkali, Lahore, Pakistan.

• Qutb-ud-din Aybak (1206–1210), founded Mamluk Sultanate, Delhi

Since such would have encountered non-Muslims and sufism flourished in early part of this period one has to believe there was tolerance on travel and free thought.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
1517-1924: Passes to the Ottoman Empire.
So during Guru Nanak Dev ji's times Mecca was in flux between the Mamluks and the Ottomans. Perhaps no one really cared who comes and goes.

1925 to now: Comes under control of King Ibn Sa'ud.[/FONT]
I assume from this point on the restriction on non-muslims was reborn.

Not necessarily Academic quality high calibre write up but if it triggers thoughts in others more capable.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[spnadmin]

Thanks Ambarsaria ji

The year 1925 stands out as a historical milestone. I was indeed wondering if closing of Mecca coincided with the assumption of power by the Saud family and their backers the Wahabi imams. That is why I asked. This seems a very modern development.

It is also really interesting that the open door to Mecca has shifted before.

It makes no sense for anyone to be irked about how Guru Nanak could enter Mecca under the circumstances...for the Muslim world then was more fluid than it is now. I would like to see this point taken up in discussion.

 

[Ishna]

At least 1503:

Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca under Saudi law,<SUP id=cite_ref-peters_206_8-1 class=reference>[9]</SUP> and using fraudulent documents to do so may result in arrest and prosecution.<SUP id=cite_ref-72 class=reference>[73]</SUP> Nevertheless, as a result of curiosity, many non-Muslims have falsely posed as Muslims in order to visit the city and experience the Hajj for themselves. The first such recorded example is that of Ludovico di Varthema of Bologna in 1503.<SUP id=cite_ref-73 class=reference>[74]</SUP> The most famous was Richard Francis Burton,<SUP id=cite_ref-74 class=reference>[75]</SUP> who traveled as a Qadiriyyah Sufi from Afghanistan in 1853. The Saudi government supports their position using Sura 9:28 from the Qur'an: O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, God will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.
​

Thank you Wikipedia.